Wilderness Society v. United States Department of the Interior

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the Department of Interior’s explanations that various documents were withheld on the basis that they discussed “wilderness issues” was insufficient
• noting that “in cases where there is no identifying information that would link an individual to a document” there is little likelihood that disclosure would injure an agency’s deliberative process
• noting that it is not sufficient for the agency merely to present “a blanket declaration that all facts are so intertwined” as not to be reasonably segregable
• noting that it is not sufficient for the agency merely to present “a blanket declaration that all facts are so intertwined” as to not be reasonably segregable
• “[T]he defendants have failed to satisfy their burden to show that the documents were properly withheld under the attorney-client privilege.”
• “[T]he segregability question turns on whether the agency has sufficiently explained why there was no reasonable means of segregating factual material from the claimed privileged material.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).